Re: Making Martial Law Easier ---New York Times

Re: Making Martial Law Easier —New York Times
Tue Feb 20, 2007 16:21

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Making Martial Law Easier —New York Times Editorial
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 16:06:25 -0500
From: Daneen

The following article was written by me: Two 'Acts' of Tyranny on the Same Day! It covers the Military Commissions Act of 2006 and the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2007, both of which were signed into law on the same day, October 17, 2006.

The article was published on the American Chronicle and its 21 syndicated sites and has received more than 9000 'views' and is archived here: I have also done more than 13 hours of cable TV and Talk Radio on this very article.

One program allowed me to 'spread the word' on the two 'Acts' that have suspended habeas corpus and eliminated posse cometatus by providing 3 continuous hours of broadcast time. We have combined that into a SINGLE 128 minute MP3 found here:

EVERYONE you know should read that article and listen to that broadcast with Jerry Hughes on his program 'Straight Talk' on Accent Radio. We are headed for MARTIAL LAW when any of the following 'triggers' occur as is spelled out in the re-written Insurrection Act, now re-named 'Enforcement of the Laws to Restore Public Order' that is ALSO part of the NDAA which says the following:

"Use of the Armed Forces in Major Public Emergencies . . . [such as] interference with State and Federal law . . . the President may employ the armed forces, including the National Guard in Federal service, to restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition in any State or possession of the United States, the President determines that domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of (”refuse” or “fail” in) maintaining public order, “in order to suppress, in any State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy.”

ALL my articles have many pictures and graphics along with clickable URL references to ALL the source materials.

Please pass this information on to as many as you can.

Daneen G. Peterson, Ph.D.

----- Original Message -----
From: APFN
Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 12:25 AM
Subject: Making Martial Law Easier —New York Times Editorial

Making Martial Law Easier —New York Times Editorial, Tue Feb 20 01:08

* "The Bill Maher Show" ‘User Generated Politics’ — Radio Your Way, Tue Feb 20 01:16

New York Times Editorial
Making Martial Law Easier

Published: February 19, 2007

A disturbing recent phenomenon in Washington is that laws that strike to the heart of American democracy have been passed in the dead of night. So it was with a provision quietly tucked into the enormous defense budget bill at the Bush administration’s behest that makes it easier for a president to override local control of law enforcement and declare martial law.

The provision, signed into law in October, weakens two obscure but important bulwarks of liberty. One is the doctrine that bars military forces, including a federalized National Guard, from engaging in law enforcement. Called posse comitatus, it was enshrined in law after the Civil War to preserve the line between civil government and the military. The other is the Insurrection Act of 1807, which provides the major exemptions to posse comitatus. It essentially limits a president’s use of the military in law enforcement to putting down lawlessness, insurrection and rebellion, where a state is violating federal law or depriving people of constitutional rights.

The newly enacted provisions upset this careful balance. They shift the focus from making sure that federal laws are enforced to restoring public order. Beyond cases of actual insurrection, the president may now use military troops as a domestic police force in response to a natural disaster, a disease outbreak, terrorist attack or to any “other condition.”

Changes of this magnitude should be made only after a thorough public airing. But these new presidential powers were slipped into the law without hearings or public debate. The president made no mention of the changes when he signed the measure, and neither the White House nor Congress consulted in advance with the nation’s governors.

There is a bipartisan bill, introduced by Senators Patrick Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, and Christopher Bond, Republican of Missouri, and backed unanimously by the nation’s governors, that would repeal the stealthy revisions. Congress should pass it. If changes of this kind are proposed in the future, they must get a full and open debate.
More Articles in Opinion
To find reference information about the words used in this article, double-click on any word, phrase or name. A new window will open with a dictionary definition or encyclopedia entry.
Past Coverage

* THE REACH OF WAR; Pentagon Group Criticized for Prewar Intelligence Analysis (February 9, 2007)
* NEWS ANALYSIS; Many Voices, But No Debate (February 7, 2007)
* THE STRUGGLE FOR IRAQ; Anti-Buildup Measure to Have Bipartisan Stamp (January 17, 2007)

Related Searches

* United States Armament and Defense
* Law and Legislation
* Bush, George W
* National Guard



Main Page - Tuesday, 02/27/07

Message Board by American Patriot Friends Network [APFN]


messageboard.gif (4314 bytes)